This post is written by freshman Lyndsey Wajert, a Hatchet columnist.
Looking back on the past election year, full of historic and groundbreaking events, one notable feature of the 2008 campaigns was the prominent and active roles played by women candidates in both major parties. Having women garnering millions of votes, hundreds of delegates and even one spot on the final ticket is quite a rare occurrence in national politics. Apparently, so is having a female SA president at our very own George Washington University, as only two women have been elected to the highest position in over 30 years.
But you have to run to win. As seven candidates have declared their intention to run for SA president, only one female is among them. This is no knock on qualified male candidates, but the question remains: why are so few females vying for the top spot with the guys? It’s not as if the student body is predominantly male.
Although GW offers the Women’s Leadership Program (WLP), sororities and other female-oriented organizations where women can learn and exercise leadership roles, is it that we still carry the “politics are for men only” sentiment? This is arguably the most politically active school in the country, and that means two things. First, the precedent set here may bode ill for our generation when it has an opportunity to exercise political leadership. Second, shouldn’t the examples of Hilary Clinton, and yes, even Sarah Palin, make more of an impact on campus? If they can make strides in shattering the glass ceiling of politics, the women of GW can too.
That being said, I am not advocating that women should automatically vote for other women in a blind movement of “feminist” power, any more than the men should only vote for men. We must assess the candidates’ stances on issues, scrutinize their qualifications and vote accordingly. But I worry that the absence of a proportionate number of candidates may reflect deeper issues.